5 ms·

there is a huge difference between having strict laws and enforcing them and "ruling with the iron fist" the later inherently implies using violence to suppres

there is a huge difference between having strict laws and enforcing them and "ruling with the iron fist" the later inherently implies using violence to suppress people

speeder 1y ago
That is always same thing. All laws that you want to be strictly enforced, requires violence. This is why people should ALWAYS remember when making laws: "Is this worth killing for?" I remember some years ago on HN people discussing about a guy that got killed because he bought a single fake cigarrete. IT goes like this: You make a law where "x" is forbidden, penalty is a simple fine. Person refuses to pay fine. So you summon that person to court, make threats of bigger fine. Person ends with bigger fine, refuses to pay anything. So you summon that person again, say they will go to jail if they don't pay. They again don't pay, AND flee the police that went to get them. So the cops are in pursuit of the guy, he is a good distance away from the cops for example, then they have the following choice: Let him go, and he won, and broke the law successfully... Or shoot him, the law won, and he is dead. This chain ALWAYS applies, because otherwise laws are useless. You can't enforce laws without the threat of killing people if they refuse all other punishments. I don't know if the guy you were discussing with is right or not, if digital era result in the need of "ruling with the iron fist", but make no mistake, there is no "strict law enforcement" that doesn't involve killing people in the end. Thus you always need to think when making laws: "Is this law worth making someone die because of it?"
- Nursie 1y ago
  In most places, shooting by law enforcement is not allowed unless there is a clear and present threat to life. Your whole post falls apart right there. Person 'x' refuses to pay a fine - OK, well there are mechanisms where a fine can be automatically applied in some cases, or taken from their assets by court order, or docked from pay. In some places bailiffs/repo men can be called to take assets after fines have been delinquent for long enough. Deadly force is not really the backstop position to a fine, even a 'strictly enforced' one.
  - amiga386 1y ago
    All countries exist as distinct entities because they can maintain what Max Weber called the monopoly on violence within their geographic bounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum In countries where we don't have trigger-happy cops, the story continues this way: * The person commits a crime or tort. Your courts fine the person. * The person doesn't pay the fine. You extract the fine forcibly from their bank account (or force their employer to dock their wages, or forcibly obtain and auction their assets; let's go with the bank example) * Why does the bank comply? Because you can revoke the bank's right to trade. * Why doesn't the bank just trade anyway? Because if they do that, you can enter their buildings and take their equipment, arrest their employees, etc. * What if the bank tries to stop you doing that? Then you send in armed police. * What if the bank shoots back? Then you send in the army, and at worst case encircle the bank and lay siege to it. * What if the bank has their own army which they use to break your siege? Send in your bigger army. Also have laws against private armies, and spend your time detecting private armies and breaking them up before they get bigger than the state's army. Most people comply with the state at the earlier steps in this chain, and the state runs all the smoother for it. But you can see in failed states, one of the main reasons for the failure is some group (or groups) inside the state have managed to develop a bigger army than the state itself, or parts of the official army break away from the current government or attempt a coup. At that point, it's not the current government's country any more, it's up for grabs. The government (and the entire system of law it represents) has lost the monopoly on violence. The point of the GP's post is that all laws are ultimately backed by violence. Most rational actors don't let law enforcement reach the explicitly violent part, but it's still there. To bring it on topic, what this highlights is it is much better to fight against bad laws while they are just proposals, it is much harder to fight against bad laws once enacted.
    - dataflow 1y ago
      > Why doesn't the bank just trade anyway? Because if they do that, you can enter their buildings and take their equipment, arrest their employees, etc. Or just cut off their power (or network access, or whatever)? I know "monopoly on violence" is the term in the literature, but I think it's more like monopoly on coercion than monopoly on violence per se. The latter is one way to implement the former, but not the only way. To give a hypothetical larger-scale example, if the population relies on a dam for water/power, then an implicit threat to destroy the dam could coerce them without any violence.
- mystraline 1y ago
  Murder by cop only applies to the individual. Never in the history of our country, was a company that openly flaunted the law, and was murdered by cop or judge. What's the saying? "I'll believe in the death penalty when they kill a corporation in Texas"
- dathinab 1y ago
  > Or shoot him, the law won, and he is dead. if a iron fist rule you shoot them, but sooner or later you will end up with situations where their brother will shoot you, or there is a uprising and they lynch the police chef etc. no one wins in country with strict rules but no iron fist rule the police person who tries to shoot someone who doesn't pose danger for other just because they try to avoid arrest by running away will lose their job > involve killing people in the end this is such a misleading dumb fatalistic argument, yes people will get killed, but there is a huge difference between the context. > You can't enforce laws without the threat of killing people if they refuse all other punishments. Except pretty much all of the EU operates _exactly_ that way with minor differences. And it works. Sure there are edge cases where you threaten shooting at someone, and sometimes police will have to shoot. But only if there is risk to live. And most crimes don't go that far.
  - Ray20 1y ago
    >Except pretty much all of the EU operates _exactly_ that way with minor differences. And it works. Well, it seems to be the same situation as everywhere: you either obey or be killed. As far as I know, in the EU there is no option to disobey and survive.
    - Vegenoid 1y ago
      I do not believe that police are permitted to shoot a nonviolent criminal simply because they might escape (in most circumstances). They do have to actually physically apprehend them.
      - spwa4 1y ago
        What is this insanity? Obviously the police have instructions that letting someone get away with a crime is better than having a shootout in the street. There's 3 big reasons for that. 2 good, one really bad: 1) other people can and will get hurt if you do that. Plus other damage. 2) no criminal only breaks the law once, so the police will get another chance. And, frankly, if by some miracle the criminal really does only breaks the law just once, that by definition means they're rehabilitated. Job well done. 3) If you use violence you WILL get hurt. Perhaps that's very Jesus of me but it's true. Jesus did not see fit to build in an exception for the police. And states do not take good care of police that get hurt in the line of duty. So for individuals ... SWAT pays well but on the other hand there's demands. Demands you will never meet again if you get even a severe kick in the knee, and that represents years/decades of lost income that the state will not replace. So ... This is something people forget, but even animals behave like that. And it makes sense: a tiger may be powerful, but he cannot survive long term eating just you. Plus the calories the tiger gains from eating you justify maybe a few scratches, nothing more. In other words: an attack will only happen if the tiger is either desperate or VERY sure there's no risk. Not even a small risk of getting knifed. Yes, we're still human, and if you really make it clear your a dangerous lunatic, say kill a cop, or kids, or ... yes some police will risk their own safety to arrest/kill you. So there's exceptions. But mostly, no.
ls612 1y ago
And what does “enforcement” mean in your mind? The western censorship regime isn’t being implemented by asking nicely…
reverendsteveii 1y ago
how do you have strict laws and enforce them without violence?

there is a huge difference between having strict laws and enforcing them and "ruling with the iron fist" the later inherently implies using violence to suppress people

speeder 1y ago

That is always same thing. All laws that you want to be strictly enforced, requires violence. This is why people should ALWAYS remember when making laws: "Is this worth killing for?" I remember some years ago on HN people discussing about a guy that got killed because he bought a single fake cigarrete. IT goes like this: You make a law where "x" is forbidden, penalty is a simple fine. Person refuses to pay fine. So you summon that person to court, make threats of bigger fine. Person ends with bigger fine, refuses to pay anything. So you summon that person again, say they will go to jail if they don't pay. They again don't pay, AND flee the police that went to get them. So the cops are in pursuit of the guy, he is a good distance away from the cops for example, then they have the following choice: Let him go, and he won, and broke the law successfully... Or shoot him, the law won, and he is dead. This chain ALWAYS applies, because otherwise laws are useless. You can't enforce laws without the threat of killing people if they refuse all other punishments. I don't know if the guy you were discussing with is right or not, if digital era result in the need of "ruling with the iron fist", but make no mistake, there is no "strict law enforcement" that doesn't involve killing people in the end. Thus you always need to think when making laws: "Is this law worth making someone die because of it?"

Nursie 1y ago
In most places, shooting by law enforcement is not allowed unless there is a clear and present threat to life. Your whole post falls apart right there. Person 'x' refuses to pay a fine - OK, well there are mechanisms where a fine can be automatically applied in some cases, or taken from their assets by court order, or docked from pay. In some places bailiffs/repo men can be called to take assets after fines have been delinquent for long enough. Deadly force is not really the backstop position to a fine, even a 'strictly enforced' one.
- amiga386 1y ago
  All countries exist as distinct entities because they can maintain what Max Weber called the monopoly on violence within their geographic bounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum In countries where we don't have trigger-happy cops, the story continues this way: * The person commits a crime or tort. Your courts fine the person. * The person doesn't pay the fine. You extract the fine forcibly from their bank account (or force their employer to dock their wages, or forcibly obtain and auction their assets; let's go with the bank example) * Why does the bank comply? Because you can revoke the bank's right to trade. * Why doesn't the bank just trade anyway? Because if they do that, you can enter their buildings and take their equipment, arrest their employees, etc. * What if the bank tries to stop you doing that? Then you send in armed police. * What if the bank shoots back? Then you send in the army, and at worst case encircle the bank and lay siege to it. * What if the bank has their own army which they use to break your siege? Send in your bigger army. Also have laws against private armies, and spend your time detecting private armies and breaking them up before they get bigger than the state's army. Most people comply with the state at the earlier steps in this chain, and the state runs all the smoother for it. But you can see in failed states, one of the main reasons for the failure is some group (or groups) inside the state have managed to develop a bigger army than the state itself, or parts of the official army break away from the current government or attempt a coup. At that point, it's not the current government's country any more, it's up for grabs. The government (and the entire system of law it represents) has lost the monopoly on violence. The point of the GP's post is that all laws are ultimately backed by violence. Most rational actors don't let law enforcement reach the explicitly violent part, but it's still there. To bring it on topic, what this highlights is it is much better to fight against bad laws while they are just proposals, it is much harder to fight against bad laws once enacted.
  - dataflow 1y ago
    > Why doesn't the bank just trade anyway? Because if they do that, you can enter their buildings and take their equipment, arrest their employees, etc. Or just cut off their power (or network access, or whatever)? I know "monopoly on violence" is the term in the literature, but I think it's more like monopoly on coercion than monopoly on violence per se. The latter is one way to implement the former, but not the only way. To give a hypothetical larger-scale example, if the population relies on a dam for water/power, then an implicit threat to destroy the dam could coerce them without any violence.
mystraline 1y ago
Murder by cop only applies to the individual. Never in the history of our country, was a company that openly flaunted the law, and was murdered by cop or judge. What's the saying? "I'll believe in the death penalty when they kill a corporation in Texas"
dathinab 1y ago
> Or shoot him, the law won, and he is dead. if a iron fist rule you shoot them, but sooner or later you will end up with situations where their brother will shoot you, or there is a uprising and they lynch the police chef etc. no one wins in country with strict rules but no iron fist rule the police person who tries to shoot someone who doesn't pose danger for other just because they try to avoid arrest by running away will lose their job > involve killing people in the end this is such a misleading dumb fatalistic argument, yes people will get killed, but there is a huge difference between the context. > You can't enforce laws without the threat of killing people if they refuse all other punishments. Except pretty much all of the EU operates _exactly_ that way with minor differences. And it works. Sure there are edge cases where you threaten shooting at someone, and sometimes police will have to shoot. But only if there is risk to live. And most crimes don't go that far.
- Ray20 1y ago
  >Except pretty much all of the EU operates _exactly_ that way with minor differences. And it works. Well, it seems to be the same situation as everywhere: you either obey or be killed. As far as I know, in the EU there is no option to disobey and survive.
  - Vegenoid 1y ago
    I do not believe that police are permitted to shoot a nonviolent criminal simply because they might escape (in most circumstances). They do have to actually physically apprehend them.
    - spwa4 1y ago
      What is this insanity? Obviously the police have instructions that letting someone get away with a crime is better than having a shootout in the street. There's 3 big reasons for that. 2 good, one really bad: 1) other people can and will get hurt if you do that. Plus other damage. 2) no criminal only breaks the law once, so the police will get another chance. And, frankly, if by some miracle the criminal really does only breaks the law just once, that by definition means they're rehabilitated. Job well done. 3) If you use violence you WILL get hurt. Perhaps that's very Jesus of me but it's true. Jesus did not see fit to build in an exception for the police. And states do not take good care of police that get hurt in the line of duty. So for individuals ... SWAT pays well but on the other hand there's demands. Demands you will never meet again if you get even a severe kick in the knee, and that represents years/decades of lost income that the state will not replace. So ... This is something people forget, but even animals behave like that. And it makes sense: a tiger may be powerful, but he cannot survive long term eating just you. Plus the calories the tiger gains from eating you justify maybe a few scratches, nothing more. In other words: an attack will only happen if the tiger is either desperate or VERY sure there's no risk. Not even a small risk of getting knifed. Yes, we're still human, and if you really make it clear your a dangerous lunatic, say kill a cop, or kids, or ... yes some police will risk their own safety to arrest/kill you. So there's exceptions. But mostly, no.

ls612 1y ago

And what does “enforcement” mean in your mind? The western censorship regime isn’t being implemented by asking nicely…

reverendsteveii 1y ago

how do you have strict laws and enforce them without violence?